Battle of the Five Armies is a soulless end to the flawed Hobbit trilogy

Ars' resident Tolkien nerd on Peter Jackson's problematic final chapter.

Read the whole story

 

[CraigJ ✅]

kranchammer[/url]":22s1nbna]It strikes me that these movies are the creation of a person with a genius for visual filmmaking that has lost or stopped listening to the voices that tell him that hey, maybe this is a bit over-the-top or maybe we should pay more attention to the story and less to paying WETA to make cool-looking shit.

It's the George Lucas syndrome - so successful that no one tells you no.

As far as movies go the Hobbit movies were OK. Compared to LOTR, they are major disappointments.

 

[anonArs]

"Flawed" - the most annoying and overused word in reviews today

(This isn't an ars-specific comment. This word is overused everywhere)

 

[Wickwick]

ElectricBlue[/url]":1p7rp8et]

solomonrex[/url]":1p7rp8et]

arcite[/url]":1p7rp8et]

Taesong[/url]":1p7rp8et]The Hobbit worked as a story because it was a small tale about a small person (literally) taking on big things. It hinted there were even greater things going on, but because it focused on a likeable and relatable main character we were drawn into the story along with Bilbo on his journey. Bilbo is told that what happened to him is part of a much greater whole, but it is also clear that that greater whole is made up of many little stories just like Bilbo's.

I get where Jackson is trying to show the things going on behind Bilbo's adventure and what is happening fits with what we suspect would have been going on. However it drastically changes the narrative of the story, now everyone's story and fate is overshadowed by "epic events" and the "big picture". The attempt to make an epic out of a tale undermines the whole point of the tale in the first place.

This here. The battle of the five armies is not much more than a couple paragraphs in the novel. Tolkien, a survivor of the trenches of WWI would have no doubt been horrified to see what was done to his small children's tale by Jackson.

That's just not realistic. Peter Jackson is not making a movie without a big battle scene in the end, and normal people wouldn't sit through even a 2 hour movie if the screen blacks out during the action. Literature isn't cinema and cinema isn't literature. PJ made many mistakes, but that wasn't one of them. Tolkien did have battle scenes in his other work, it's not completely foreign, either.

Nonsense. It is completely foreign to the nature of the work PJ is adapting. There's a condensed version of the Hobbit that could've made an okay movie. The book is not terribly exciting but it has plenty of suspense that would've transferred well to a movie but instead they removed any sense of danger the movie could've had with over the top effects and what's left? a soulless boring trilogy even the most die hard LOTR fans don't want to see.

Oh, I don't think the battle could have been skipped as it was in the book (essentially). There are some things the movies convey well that the books couldn't. For instance, the visualization of Erebor was far superior to anything Tolkien wrote in the book. He wasn't big on 12 page descriptive manifestos. I think a movie of the Hobbit would necessarily include some of the highlights of the battle.

It did not need to be shot the way it was. It could have been used to advance the characters in the way that the scene between Pippen and Gandalf did as the troll was about to break down the gate in Gondor.

 

[심돌산]

Hesster56[/url]":2oxfkfc9]

Wickwick[/url]":2oxfkfc9]

Hesster56[/url]":2oxfkfc9]I don't mind having this discussion, but it could be a bit off topic.

Bombadil doesn't work in the movies.

There's nowhere between A Shortcut to Mushrooms and The Sign of the Prancing Pony to drop "and then our characters spend a long weekend having brunch with God."

He's only as much God as Gandalf. He reigns supreme over his garden but not (necessarily) outside of it. At least the Ents did ask about Entwives in the movies. That's about all we get in reference to Bombadil. Oh, and the Barrow Wights swords just happen to show up in Strider's hands.

Or Gandalf said "Aragorn, you'll be meeting between two and five Hobbits at the inn. Please have some sort of weapon for them; they need to learn how to defend themselves."

And Bombadil has been referenced as "older" than the the rings, which puts him as outside of the effects of the Ring's powers and the world around him.

There are many characters older than the rings -- Galadriel for one. That doesn't put her outside of the effects of the ring's powers.

 

[Scallywag]

I like the dragon. Dragons are cool.

 

[Sufinsil]

Wasted minutes on the elf love stares while they give the Eagles and Beorn 20 seconds of screen time.

Why would you want to skp on a giant bear winning the battle is a travesty.

Pretty disappointing trilogy and 3rd movie.

 

[Michael Carman]

Hesster56[/url]":2quah1pn]
And Bombadil has been referenced as "older" than the the rings, which puts him as outside of the effects of the Ring's powers and the world around him.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. There are many characters older than the One Ring: Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, Treebeard... age is certainly no protection. Bombadil's mastery over the Ring (or more accurately, its lack of power over him) is because he has no interest in any power beyond what he already possesses.

Bombadil wouldn't fit in the movie for the same reason that he's a bit out-of-place in the books. He has virtually no connection to the larger story, and is out of the story (for good) as quickly as he appeared. The character is really an inside-joke for Tolkien's children: the character was based on one of their toys.

 

[심돌산]

Here's the only review that matters to me, from my 11-year-old: "That was great!"

 

[globalist]

I knew we were in for some trouble with master PJ's ego after the horrible King Kong.

But even then I would never have dreamt that I'd be skipping a Hobbit movie. A Hobbit movie, for Smaug's sake! But alas, the first one was atrocious, the second one I just fast-fowarded through (fast-forwarding through a hobbit movie??!) and the third one I'll just ignore.

 

[Wolfe Boy]

IMO, Star Wars Prequels > The Hobbit Movies. At least they were fun.

 

[Wickwick]

심돌산[/url]":13blrmli]

Hesster56[/url]":13blrmli]

Wickwick[/url]":13blrmli]

Hesster56[/url]":13blrmli]I don't mind having this discussion, but it could be a bit off topic.

Bombadil doesn't work in the movies.

There's nowhere between A Shortcut to Mushrooms and The Sign of the Prancing Pony to drop "and then our characters spend a long weekend having brunch with God."

He's only as much God as Gandalf. He reigns supreme over his garden but not (necessarily) outside of it. At least the Ents did ask about Entwives in the movies. That's about all we get in reference to Bombadil. Oh, and the Barrow Wights swords just happen to show up in Strider's hands.

Or Gandalf said "Aragorn, you'll be meeting between two and five Hobbits at the inn. Please have some sort of weapon for them; they need to learn how to defend themselves."

And Bombadil has been referenced as "older" than the the rings, which puts him as outside of the effects of the Ring's powers and the world around him.

There are many characters older than the rings -- Galadriel for one. That doesn't put her outside of the effects of the ring's powers.

In fact, as a bearer of one of the rings made for Elves she's inextricably tied to the One. Though she was powerful herself, with her ring she was even more so. Everything she did with that ring was eventually tied up in the One Ring such that when it was destroyed so too did all her former works fade.

That said, it was made abundantly clear that she felt she could keep Sauron's influence out of her woods unless the Ring of Power was restored to him. Had that happened she would have been enslaved to him instead.

 

[jeffronicus]

Wickwick[/url]":154bg4sf]

Faramir[/url]":154bg4sf]

Hesster56[/url]":154bg4sf]I, for one, am waiting for the De-Extended, one-movie edition. I watched the first, could see the level of cgi "hijinks" they were embracing, and hit the eject button. The LotR movies are nigh-perfect, this series crumbled under its own needless expansion.

The Fellowship of the Ring extended edition was excellent (notwithstanding the tragic elimination of Bombadil). In the Two Towers and especially in the Return of the King, you can tell that PJ was already getting bored of the source material and the quality suffered.

The first hobbit movie was a travesty, and I after that I stopped paying attention.

I will admit that every time since the first read through I do flip pages past the trip of the two Hobbits and Gollum through Mordor.

Woe is me. I'm so tired. I'm so Thirsty. Woe is me.

There are certainly some pacing issues with that.

Back in my AD&D days, the group's running joke when things got slow was "...and they're still on the road to Mordor."

 

[kranchammer]

caldepen[/url]":11ojl5gx]I think the timing may be right to roll in the Dragonlance... Please no more Tolkien... Lots of material out there just have to choose it and then market it properly.

Or better yet, a Games of Thrones-esque miniseries based on some of the better (slim pickings, I know) D&D authors' works. Tales from Icewind Dale (Drizzt, naturally! ), etc.

 

[jcnix]

at least it wasn't as drawn out as games of throne

 

[Marcos2247]

I liked the first one. Well, except for the goblin town nonsense. Worst CGI of the series.

The second one was bad. I mean, it's in the book sure, but Lake Town feels tagged on and without purpose. And the "love plot" between the handsome dwarf and Kate from Lost was sooo forced. I HATE it when in the movies two people catch each other's glance and they're forever in love.

The third one is just mediocrity. They do away with Smaug in 5 minutes. Again, that's what the book says, but with all the crap they added to the story, they could have given that glorious dragon a better part in the film. Then it's 30 minutes of bad survivor soap opera. They somehow still manage to rush the whole drama that's happening inside the mountain. And then a boring battle.

My favorite line: "Watch out, there's a hundred Orcs coming our way. The two of us will take care of them, you go ahead."
Yeah, I'm biting my nails.
The Orcs manage to almost overwhelm the dwarf army with hundreds of dwarves, until the dirty dozen from the mountain joins the fight. That turns the battle. Sure.

 

[multimediavt]

Question: What's 1,432,674?

Answer: The RPM rate that Tolkein is spinning at in his grave after Peter Jackoff (and wife) got hold of his stories and effed them up.

 

[caldepen]

I loved Bombadil, and I loved the Barrow-downs. Both omissions disappointed me, especially the Barrow-downs as it was vital that the weapons be found there in order to distract the Ring Wraiths. Omitting that was terrible I believe. And while we are at it, changing the motivation of the Ents was very wrong as well. In the books they come to the lengthy decision that it is their responsibility to help. The movies made it about revenge. Dumb. Those were my first warning signs that not everything was perfect.

 

[ayejay_nz]

I think most young kids will probably enjoy the movie and most people who read the book when they were younger and are now in their 20's + probably won't.

Is the target audience of the film, as was the novel, young kids?

At the end of the day a $90.6m five-day opening at the US box office says "keep making them like this".

 

[issor]

If you haven't read the books or seen the movie and want to be surprised, do not pass beyond this point.

You missed a good opportunity here to reference FotR.

 

[caldepen]

At the end of the day a $90.6m five-day opening at the US box office says "keep making them like this".

The fact that they mostly look at opening days and weekends now are exactly the problem. They are making movies that initially excite but when you think about them afterwards you get mad.

 

[Wickwick]

multimediavt[/url]":7yas1k2o]

심돌산[/url]":7yas1k2o]Here's the only review that matters to me, from my 11-year-old: "That was great!"

That's a nice review. Too bad none of Tolkien's stories were ever intended for children.

The Hobbit was most certainly meant for children. He asked his own son to review it - quite young.

As with any good children's story there's a lot there for adults too but it's light reading for anyone past age 14.

 

[gijames1225]

multimediavt[/url]":kr93ynnh]

심돌산[/url]":kr93ynnh]Here's the only review that matters to me, from my 11-year-old: "That was great!"

That's a nice review. Too bad none of Tolkien's stories were ever intended for children.

Uh, The Hobbit most definitely was, but that's part of the reason the movies are so abysmal, they totally abandon the fairy-tale and folklore feel of the book and just chase after the mindless, blockbuster action movie crowd.

 

[Mydrrin]

My thoughts on it were that it was poor CGI, just terribad. The ghost fight looked like no effort was put into the fight scene were it seemed the characters spent 5 minutes looking they were whacking things and CGI'd the ghosts on the point ends. It was really that terrible. The elves all have bows as shown over and over again, then when the dwarves make a cool 2 high pike line - instead of shooting their bows the elves jumps over before the orcs come into contact with the spears....just so much crap...like massively mailed orcs getting cut to shreds by peasants who seem again to just wave swords around and orcs die, or perhaps a few tossed rocks. Hard to fear something that dies so easy, there really wasn't any danger. The scene where the run back to the holes, the hordes move far too fast. Heroic rams magically appear to bring the heroes to the top, killing a dozen orcs each. Just too much random stuff to care...heroes need this so .... bam it appears, heroes are winning...lets take that away. It was weak storytelling, poor CGI, and bad direction to the CGI - as per Star Wars prequels as alluded to.

 

[Goofball_Jones]

Have said this a lot, but once they release this on Blu-Ray, some enterprising student film editor should take all three movies and use them as raw footage. Then cut together one, tight, 3-hour epic movie that's based only on scenes from the book...or as close as you can get from the footage. It would be a good exercise I think.

 

[Hesster56]

multimediavt[/url]":2pg92ut4]

심돌산[/url]":2pg92ut4]Here's the only review that matters to me, from my 11-year-old: "That was great!"

That's a nice review. Too bad none of Tolkien's stories were ever intended for children.

A statement more false than any of Wormtongue's.

 

[gijames1225]

Goofball_Jones[/url]":18gbdkp2]Have said this a lot, but once they release this on Blu-Ray, some enterprising student film editor should take all three movies and use them as raw footage. Then cut together one, tight, 3-hour epic movie that's based only on scenes from the book...or as close as you can get from the footage. It would be a good exercise I think.

That's bound to happen, and I look forward to it when it does.

 

[kvndoom]

Much like Transformers 2, I left the movie theater quiet and with nothing to say. It was empty calories, not memorable at all, and not something I'd ever volunteer to watch again.

I didn't mind bringing back the LOTR alumni solely because I could see the value in watching this "prequel" directly before Return of the King (except for Legolas needing 60 years to find Aragorn, who didn't look quite that old in "Fellowship"). But wow, no closure at all after introducing so many important characters.

 

[Ushio]

Wickwick[/url]":31nomu2z]

Tolkien always had a terseness with language that conveyed so much with so little. There were references to battles or historical events that suggested a real world with as complex a history as ours but no more than a line was spared - the details were never forthcoming (No - Christopher Tolkien's expansion of that doesn't count!).

That's part of what made reading these books worthwhile. Things were left to the imagination, the prose was short and the pace was fast.

If only Peter Jackson had learned that lesson from the author.

Fast pace? is The Hobbit that different from The Fellowship of the Ring as that's the only one I have ever read and it makes the 13 books of the Wheel of Time feel brief.

 

[Nevermark]

Now JJ Abrams needs to resurrect the LotR franchise like he did with Star Trek and Star Wars.

I can't believe Peter Jackson crapped on the Hobbit. Who does he think he is, George Lucas?

The idea of bringing in more Tolkien lore to The Hobbit was great and should have resulted in a creative masterpiece.

But bringing in lots of random story, CGI filler and a super fighter version of Bilbo was a disaster.

 

[Ushio]

Goofball_Jones[/url]":1rd6ouyn]Have said this a lot, but once they release this on Blu-Ray, some enterprising student film editor should take all three movies and use them as raw footage. Then cut together one, tight, 3-hour epic movie that's based only on scenes from the book...or as close as you can get from the footage. It would be a good exercise I think.

Wow that sounds really boring so just more walking and talking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lddOI3QCewg

 

[LordInsidious]

All 3 were entertaining. If you want more than that you're asking too much of movies.

 

[Faramir]

Nevermark[/url]":3s2qest3]Now JJ Abrams needs to resurrect the LotR franchise like he did with Star Trek and Star Wars.

I can't believe Peter Jackson crapped on the Hobbit. Who does he think he is, George Lucas?

The idea of bringing in more Tolkien lore to The Hobbit was great and should have resulted in a creative masterpiece.

But bringing in lots of random story, CGI filler and a super fighter version of Bilbo was a disaster.

If only copyright didn't last forever in the US we could have many different interpretations.

Under the rules as they existed at Tolkien's death, the Return of the King would have gone into the public domain in 2011 (the prior two and the hobbit on earlier dates).

 

[CBrachyrhynchos]

Thorin and the series both end up drowning in an Olympic-sized pool of glittery cheese dip.

 

[MichaelC]

the article largely hits the nail on the head for me.

I went and saw it at the threatre the other day as I had a day off. Spur of the moment thing as I had originally intended to wait for it to be available on Amazon Prime. I won't say I want my money back, but I would have felt better waiting.

"soulless" is exactly what I thought when it was over. I think I enjoyed the Rankin and Bass animated feature more. It was more in line.

Except for Bilbo's scenes, it was something of a chore to watch.

 

[Wickwick]

Ushio[/url]":96x95qa2]

Wickwick[/url]":96x95qa2]

Tolkien always had a terseness with language that conveyed so much with so little. There were references to battles or historical events that suggested a real world with as complex a history as ours but no more than a line was spared - the details were never forthcoming (No - Christopher Tolkien's expansion of that doesn't count!).

That's part of what made reading these books worthwhile. Things were left to the imagination, the prose was short and the pace was fast.

If only Peter Jackson had learned that lesson from the author.

Fast pace? is The Hobbit that different from The Fellowship of the Ring as that's the only one I have ever read and it makes the 13 books of the Wheel of Time feel brief.

The Hobbit was fluff. The Lord of the Rings was JRR's masterpiece.

Fellowship is actually jam-packed and quite fast paced (compared to Jordan). You may just have to read the other 2 books of the trilogy (and maybe the Hobbit) to realize just how dense it is. In fact, over the course of ~25 years I've probably read the trilogy 8 times.

 

[Katana314]

Man, they really should have just left it at the original trilogy. Generally there's just not as much exciting they can do with an entire other trilogy of prologues. Plus, there were warning signs that the director had somewhat lost his charm that made the first three movies classics.

Well, at least there's hope that The Force Awakens will return our inspiration.
Wait, we were talking about Star Wars right?

 

[skippyvsjifshowdown]

It was just stretched too far. Over at FiveThirtyEight they compared the length of movies with the number of pages that were used for novels turned into popular films since 2000. Battle of the Five Armies clocks in at 2 minutes per page, a stretch from even the other two Hobbit films at 1.69 minutes per page for An Unexpected Journey and 1.33 minutes per page the The Desolation of Smaug. For comparisons sake the LOTR movies clocked in at .51 (The Two Towers), .47 (Return of the King), and .41 (The Fellowship of the Ring) minutes per page respectively. Of the 54 compared, the next closest to the Hobbit films was the 2013 version of The Great Gatsby which also stretched the source material but didn't break the minute per page mark, (.79).

 

[loombot]

Another shameless cash grab by Hollywood.